The ESPN NFL2K5 2006 Project?

[Rocky]

Thanks adriano. I changed alot of ratings on the game and did the cuts and transactions as well. Here's what I did so far....

QB's:
Read Coverage-40(this sounds strange but I have some theories about this. From what I've played this works the best)
Composure-+10 min. 75
Consistency-+7 min. 60(QB's should have high consistency ratings or else you will get 0-9 3 INT streches. Should still be low for backups but all starters should have at least 80).

RB:
+6 Agl. (Man this helps alot. RB's feel smoother to control and you see the effectivenss of guys like Westbrook and Dunn.)
-6 Break Tackle. (Got this from another thread here and it worked well and made sense)

WR's:
+7 Hold on to the ball(plus individual edits)

LB's:
-7 Coverage(many LB's are rated in the high 70 and 60's which would make them as good as alot of CB's in coverage)

CB:
-70% max 10.

FS:
-65% max 20.

SS:
-60 max. 30

That's it so far. If anybody else have anything else to add, post here or at the site. A file will be coming soon!

[rudyjuly2]

Why would you REDUCE read coverage? By making them worse does it actually make them better or do you think the CPU QBs are too effective? Just curious as to the reason because I find the that is the weakest part of the game. CPU QBs just make too many bad decisions with the ball. They throw into double coverage way too often although part of the reason is they release the ball too soon imo.

[gooberstabone]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

CPU QBs just make too many bad decisions with the ball. They throw into double coverage way too often although part of the reason is they release the ball too soon imo.

I couldn't agree more with these statements. I've had many an easy pick because of bad CPU computer play... it may seem nice at the time to get a pick, but it'd be even better to see the CPU take a sack or throw the ball away. Time and again the QB releases the ball as soon as he comes up from under the center!

[Rickster101]

Quote: Originally Posted by HMcCoy

Yo Adriano...what did they change the aggressiveness ratings to? I haven't peeped the new update.

Hey whats up HMcCoy (Doc) does any of this look or sound familar...Rocky seems to be on top of things and they're shaping up and looking good.

Yo Rocky keep it up bro I'm diggin' what you guys are starting up over here,I knew you always had the potential to carry this on and you're really making things appear to look good for us guys still into ESPN Football so stick with it you're doing some good stuff here bro.




Holla Back ya'll

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Why would you REDUCE read coverage? By making them worse does it actually make them better or do you think the CPU QBs are too effective? Just curious as to the reason because I find the that is the weakest part of the game. CPU QBs just make too many bad decisions with the ball. They throw into double coverage way too often although part of the reason is they release the ball too soon imo.

QB Read Coverage rating at 40 makes the QB play BETTER!! from what I've seen. The Read Coverage rating effects how much a QB will throw to a primary target. If it is real low, he will more likely throw to his primary receiver. If it is real high, he will check down much quicker.

The problem is that sometimes a QB with a high RC rating checks into a route that is being well covered as well, especially if he is being pressured. A QB with a low RC rating will wait until his primary receiver is open to make the throw. So I'm not convinced that a high RC rating is better. Completion percentage is much better but more importantly, general QB play is much, much better when the Read Coverage is 40-60. QB's will stick check off if time permits but finds the open man better.

The most important ratings for good QB play are composure and consistency however. For starters, these need to be at least 80 and for good QB's they need to be 90 or better. More testing is required because I have no clue if I'm the only one seeing this and there is something wrong with me.

[rudyjuly2]

Very interesting theory on the read coverage. So does 40 - 60 still constitute a bad to good range or is 40 considered better than 60? Can you give some examples of QB ratings such as Peyton, Hasselbeck, A.J. Feeley, etc?

Thanks.

[Rocky]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Very interesting theory on the read coverage. So does 40 - 60 still constitute a bad to good range or is 40 considered better than 60? Can you give some examples of QB ratings such as Peyton, Hasselbeck, A.J. Feeley, etc? Thanks.

From what I've tested...all QB RC ratings on 40 give me a good result. It is universal for all QB's. 50 and 60 works pretty well too. The most important ratings though are: the composure rating, the consistency rating, and to a lesser extent the accuracy rating....they all need to be high for starters except maybe the accuracy rating.

So for Peyton I put:
Throwing Power-94
Accuracy-98
Composure-95
Read Coverage-40
Consitency-97

For Donovan McNabb:
Power-95
Accuracy-88
Composure-98
Read Coverage-40
Consistency-94

For Aaron Brooks:
Power-87
Accuracy-85
Composure-91
Read Coverage-40
Consistency-88

For Marc Bulger:
Power-84
Accuracy-90
Composuere-90
Read Coverage-40
Consistency-90

For Kyle Boller:
Power-89
Accuracy-78
Composure-80
Read Coverage-40
Consistency-81

For Eli Manning:
Power-83
Accuracy-82
Composure-82
Read Coverage-40
Consistency-81

[rudyjuly2]

Do you find there is enough of a difference when playing against good QBs versus bad QBs when everyone has a 40 for read coverage?

Also, I upped the composure by 10% on all QBs as well as arm strength as there were too many slow passes. I left consistency alone but maybe should have bumped that up instead of read coverage. I will have to give this a try.

Thanks.

P.S. This is all manual editing for the PS2 rosters.